Ah, good old moral relativism! Who are we to tell Nazis that it's wrong to kill all their Jewish citizens? That's the height of entitlement! They're allowed to have their own rules!
Look at the article. They had to show cost savings over 23 years to see a large number.
That article is talking about a $162 saving, dimbulb. Given that you can now get decent LED bulbs for just about $2, that's something like an 80,000% ROI.
You're getting your panties in a bunch over the 23 year all-inclusive projection, but they fucking give you a breakdown right above that, so you can do your own math. Energy cost difference alone:
$180-$30 = $150 $150 / 23 = $6.50 per year per bulb
So the electricity savings alone over the course of one year are enough to generate about a 200% ROI. You've literally linked to an article which shows that you are completely full of shit, as a way of trying to prove that you're right.
Yeah he's full of shit. I went traveling around some third world countries recently, and one of the things that struck me is that several rather poor countries I visited have essentially eliminated incandescent bulbs in favour of LEDs.
We are talking about places where the average person makes 10% or less of what the average american makes. Places where an LED bulb costs between 2 and 5 hours wages at the average salary, yet I didn't see a single incandescent bulb the entire time I was there. Why? Because the energy savings are high enough that even when you have to work 5 hours to buy a single bulb, you would have to be brain dead not to do it.
That's stupid, of course. If you're going to blame the USA for all the retards killing each other, then you may as well blame Saddam for the US invasion, and the subsequent retards killing each other. But you won't do that because - under your ideology - the USA has to be responsible for every bad thing that happens I'm the world.
What is involved in each one? Most people just talk about the run time. Check out the worlds longest burning bulb. https://www.popularmechanics.c...
LED's are made of plastic and plastic is a hydrocarbon, and they break down and expire and will go into land fills too. Most of them are engineered to only barely meet the very weak regulatory requirements to be energy efficient.
Wtf? You can't be serious with this shit....
The LED bulbs I have in my home right now literally use 1/10th the electricity of an equivalent incandescent bulb. That's not "barely energy efficient", that's an order of magnitude more efficient. They also last a hell of a lot longer. So far I've gotten 3 years out of them and lost 1. In that time period I would have replaced a minimum of 27 incandescent bulbs. Probably more.
Lastly your "world's longest burning bulb" has lasted as long as it has because the filament is ridiculously thick. Which makes it even LESS efficient than a standard incandescent bulb. The damn thing is basically a resistance heater which happens to produce some light. If you think that this is in any way more "green" than modern LED bulbs, you've been smoking a bit too much green yourself...
No, I want you to explain why the general public thinks they're all "hardened criminals" (they aren't)
Because people are ignorant and like easy stereotypes.
and (b), why even "hardened criminals" deserve that.
When did I say they did?
(Conversely, why should the other hardened criminals be allowed to have "fun" doing it? The very worst of society seems to have great fun in prison)
If you think anyone has fun in prison you're slowly starting to transition from "kind of an idiot" to "definitely an idiot". Regardless, you're asking the wrong person since I never made any such claims.
I single it out because a) America makes more noise about being decent and upstanding,
This is nonsense. People in pretty much every EU nation make far more noise about how superior they are to those horrible colonials than people in the US have ever made about themselves. For every one american I hear chanting "USA number 1!" I hear at least 5 Europeans telling me how Europe is better at absolutely everything. And Canadians aren't any better, either. Our national sport may be hockey, but pointing out why we are better than Americans comes in as a close second.
and b) Because people in other countries see it as a genuine problem and try to do something whereas it's on the rise in the USA.
Again, nonsense. In the US the number of reports is rising, but that's not the same as the number of occurrences rising. Anonymous surveys of prisons have always shown a much higher incidence than actual reported incidents, which is no surprise; the same occurs amongst the civilian population. The rise in reporting coincided with the introduction of new reporting standards. The new reporting standards themselves were driven by the passage of the "Prison Rape Elimination Act" way back in 2003.
Of course you can ignore all that and keep insisting that "rape is increasing in US prisons" and "only other countries try to do soemthing about it", but that will just help move you further into the "definitely an idiot" category.
The USA knew what IBM was doing. They also knew Alcoa was selling Aluminum, and they knew about the corporation selling the fuel (used to have a nice reference for him) etc.
Who exactly in the US knew this, when, and why does it matter? Everyone did business with Nazi Germany. Throughout the 1930s even Palestinian Jews were importing goods from Germany. England and France continued doing business with them right up until the outbreak of war. Spain and Italy, of course, continued doing so long after, along with many other European nations. Of what significance is it, exactly, that some American businesses acted the same as businesses in most other nations?
And it also knew that the holocaust was occurring, but delayed entry into the war so that everyone else would be at a disadvantage, having been bombed repeatedly.
Historical revisionism at it's finest. No historian of any note believes anything remotely like this. The US entry into the war was delayed by domestic political bickering. However, even before their official entry into the war, the US was providing massive shipments to Europe in support of her allies, as well as engaging in naval battles against German vessels. You're making up complete nonsense.
Of course you won't criticize the USSR for signing a neutrality pact with the Nazis, since commies are your kind of people. Nor would you criticize the Swedes for remaining neutral throughout the war, because that's just not a popular position. But you're more than happy to make up nonsense about the USA because you're a Brave Peoples Warrior attacking those eeeeevil capitalists, and truth doesn't matter when you have righteousness on your side.
I don't mean the sheer number of people in there, I mean the way that it's a place for institutionalized rape and that most Americans seem to be perfectly OK with that.
You want me to explain to you why a facility full of hardened criminals might have a somewhat high incidence of rape? And why the general public wouldn't care about what criminals do to each other?
This goes back to that "kind of an idiot" thing....
The two things (Abu Ghraib and federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison) seem related to me. The idea that there's whole classes/races of people who somehow "deserve" to be tortured, abused and shot at seems to be prevalent in the USA.
That might be a valid observation if it were solely an american phenomenon. It is not. Not even close. I've heard similar comments made by people of all kinds of different nationalities, and prison rape is certainly not a US-only phenomenon. For you to single out the USA says far more about your biases than it does about the actual character of the United States as a nation.
Give me a specific example of a war crime which occurred and for which "no one from the west has been held accountable".
Methed-up helicopter pilots who can't tell the difference between a fucking camera and a rocket launcher, killing journalists before confirming their targets are hostiles.
Give me an example of this occurring. No, the Bradley Manning video doesn't show that, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it does.
Abu-ghraib prisoner abuse and torture.
Plenty of people were held accountable for this, which directly contradicts the original claim.
Robert Bales. Kandahar massacre.
Got life in prison. Again, what kind of retard thinks this is an example of westerners not being held accountable?
The puppy pitcher. Don't look it up.
He was booted out of the marines, and his buddy was disciplined. Strike three, you're out!
Shall I continue?
If you're going to provide more of the same, then no, you certainly shouldn't. If you have some legit examples then please start.
You say "plenty". Do you have any evidence that a single person did get killed?
Nope, otherwise I would have said that he DID get people killed. Obviously from a legal perspective this would be important in determining the category of his crime, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make a difference.
Have you forgotten Abu Ghraib? That's the true face of the USA.
You really are kind of an idiot, aren't you? I guess you think that Anders Breivik is the true face of Norway, too.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury
That, uhm... that doesn't actually mean what you appear to think it means.
This part of the fifth amendment deals with the requirement to have a grand jury approve the charges before any felony is actually brought to trial. It's not saying that "you have to give answers to a grand jury", it's saying "you will not be put on trial (held to answer) unless a grand jury presents an indictment against you".
I would ask for it in writing, after which I would be quite happy to answer all of their questions. If they subsequently tried to charge me with anything I would laugh in their faces after the judge threw it out of court.
The comparison you're trying to draw is flawed because grand jury proceeding do not include the defendant. That's really the primary reason why there's no defense lawyer present; because the jury is not interested in hearing from the defendant at all. It's not a case of the defendant being forced to speak without his lawyer, but rather a case of the defendant not even being invited to the proceedings. Ergo your question is irrelevant; a more apt comparison would have been to ask "what would you say if the police didn't take you to the station?".
It is easy to be an arse on the internet, but think about it. In real life, if you meet a "man in a dress" - say a clerk in the post office - are you really going to abuse them and insist on calling them a man to the other staff?
I've met and had decent conversations with a couple of women who "identified" as men. They were fun to be around, and seemed to enjoy my company as well. I simply addressed them by name. Had they insisted that I refer to them as "he", I would have refused, but they never asked, so we never had any issues. They also never tried to force their way into a male bathroom or change room, so that's another issue which could have have caused conflict but was handily avoided.
On the other hand, I was once out drinking with a group of friends when one of them - while trying to get by a guy in a crowded bar - said "excuse me, dude". The guy immediately turned around and screamed at the top of his lungs "I AM A WOMAN!!!!!". The subsequent conversation did not go well for him, and he eventually left the bar in tears.
I don't give a shit how you identify. Just like I don't really give a shit if you believe that the earth is flat, or that Elvis is still alive. Your beliefs don't matter to me until you try to force them on me, or on others. You can go on believing that you are Sir Fluffynuts of Licksley all you like; I'm unlikely to comment on it until you start demanding that I address you by your title.
Ah, I see, I misunderstood what you were saying... though I'm still not sure I fully understand your argument.
Earlier you said that "Gender dysphoria in young children is a real thing, but usually resolves itself". This would seem to imply that "gender self-identification", as you put it, isn't a biological trait so much as a psychological/behavioral one (insofar as those are distinct concepts). The fact is, children role play and try on all kinds of behaviours. I've seen kids walk around on all fours, barking and panting. Are they self identifying as a dog?
A male child who takes on a female persona for a while isn't following some biological imperative to be a girl; it seems much more likely that he's just trying out a role. The only "hard wired" imperative is to try out new things; something which has served us well as a species. It only turns into gender dysphoria (a psychological problem) for those who eventually decide that they prefer a role which doesn't match their body.
Slashdot Mirror
You believe that the side which you personally don't like had more lies?
I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you!
I guess youve never heard of Five Eyes.
No you didn't. Maybe vbscript.
Ah, good old moral relativism! Who are we to tell Nazis that it's wrong to kill all their Jewish citizens? That's the height of entitlement! They're allowed to have their own rules!
Yes, we can all make up stories as well.
Yes, you've certainly demonstrated that.
Look at the article. They had to show cost savings over 23 years to see a large number.
That article is talking about a $162 saving, dimbulb. Given that you can now get decent LED bulbs for just about $2, that's something like an 80,000% ROI.
You're getting your panties in a bunch over the 23 year all-inclusive projection, but they fucking give you a breakdown right above that, so you can do your own math. Energy cost difference alone:
$180-$30 = $150
$150 / 23 = $6.50 per year per bulb
So the electricity savings alone over the course of one year are enough to generate about a 200% ROI. You've literally linked to an article which shows that you are completely full of shit, as a way of trying to prove that you're right.
Yeah he's full of shit. I went traveling around some third world countries recently, and one of the things that struck me is that several rather poor countries I visited have essentially eliminated incandescent bulbs in favour of LEDs.
We are talking about places where the average person makes 10% or less of what the average american makes. Places where an LED bulb costs between 2 and 5 hours wages at the average salary, yet I didn't see a single incandescent bulb the entire time I was there. Why? Because the energy savings are high enough that even when you have to work 5 hours to buy a single bulb, you would have to be brain dead not to do it.
To be fair, it's also possible that he can think, but prefers not to.
That's stupid, of course. If you're going to blame the USA for all the retards killing each other, then you may as well blame Saddam for the US invasion, and the subsequent retards killing each other. But you won't do that because - under your ideology - the USA has to be responsible for every bad thing that happens I'm the world.
Wow, you didn't just move those goalposts, you launched them to another planet!
I'm glad we could all get this lesson on what the military is from a guy who never served.
The US tried to clean up the French mess. The USSR took it as an opportunity to fuck up the country even more, just to fuck with America.
What is involved in each one? Most people just talk about the run time. Check out the worlds longest burning bulb.
https://www.popularmechanics.c...
LED's are made of plastic and plastic is a hydrocarbon, and they break down and expire and will go into land fills too. Most of them are engineered to only barely meet the very weak regulatory requirements to be energy efficient.
Wtf? You can't be serious with this shit ....
The LED bulbs I have in my home right now literally use 1/10th the electricity of an equivalent incandescent bulb. That's not "barely energy efficient", that's an order of magnitude more efficient. They also last a hell of a lot longer. So far I've gotten 3 years out of them and lost 1. In that time period I would have replaced a minimum of 27 incandescent bulbs. Probably more.
Lastly your "world's longest burning bulb" has lasted as long as it has because the filament is ridiculously thick. Which makes it even LESS efficient than a standard incandescent bulb. The damn thing is basically a resistance heater which happens to produce some light. If you think that this is in any way more "green" than modern LED bulbs, you've been smoking a bit too much green yourself ...
Amongst all the stupid things you've said over the years, blaming German companies for the holocaust has got to be by far the stupidest. Fuck off.
Maybe not skipping your meds would help you stay on topic?
Says the cunt whining about US companies as a response to someone saying that the US is nothing like Nazi Germany.
No, I want you to explain why the general public thinks they're all "hardened criminals" (they aren't)
Because people are ignorant and like easy stereotypes.
and (b), why even "hardened criminals" deserve that.
When did I say they did?
(Conversely, why should the other hardened criminals be allowed to have "fun" doing it? The very worst of society seems to have great fun in prison)
If you think anyone has fun in prison you're slowly starting to transition from "kind of an idiot" to "definitely an idiot". Regardless, you're asking the wrong person since I never made any such claims.
I single it out because a) America makes more noise about being decent and upstanding,
This is nonsense. People in pretty much every EU nation make far more noise about how superior they are to those horrible colonials than people in the US have ever made about themselves. For every one american I hear chanting "USA number 1!" I hear at least 5 Europeans telling me how Europe is better at absolutely everything. And Canadians aren't any better, either. Our national sport may be hockey, but pointing out why we are better than Americans comes in as a close second.
and b) Because people in other countries see it as a genuine problem and try to do something whereas it's on the rise in the USA.
Again, nonsense. In the US the number of reports is rising, but that's not the same as the number of occurrences rising. Anonymous surveys of prisons have always shown a much higher incidence than actual reported incidents, which is no surprise; the same occurs amongst the civilian population. The rise in reporting coincided with the introduction of new reporting standards. The new reporting standards themselves were driven by the passage of the "Prison Rape Elimination Act" way back in 2003.
Of course you can ignore all that and keep insisting that "rape is increasing in US prisons" and "only other countries try to do soemthing about it", but that will just help move you further into the "definitely an idiot" category.
The USA knew what IBM was doing. They also knew Alcoa was selling Aluminum, and they knew about the corporation selling the fuel (used to have a nice reference for him) etc.
Who exactly in the US knew this, when, and why does it matter? Everyone did business with Nazi Germany. Throughout the 1930s even Palestinian Jews were importing goods from Germany. England and France continued doing business with them right up until the outbreak of war. Spain and Italy, of course, continued doing so long after, along with many other European nations. Of what significance is it, exactly, that some American businesses acted the same as businesses in most other nations?
And it also knew that the holocaust was occurring, but delayed entry into the war so that everyone else would be at a disadvantage, having been bombed repeatedly.
Historical revisionism at it's finest. No historian of any note believes anything remotely like this. The US entry into the war was delayed by domestic political bickering. However, even before their official entry into the war, the US was providing massive shipments to Europe in support of her allies, as well as engaging in naval battles against German vessels. You're making up complete nonsense.
Of course you won't criticize the USSR for signing a neutrality pact with the Nazis, since commies are your kind of people. Nor would you criticize the Swedes for remaining neutral throughout the war, because that's just not a popular position. But you're more than happy to make up nonsense about the USA because you're a Brave Peoples Warrior attacking those eeeeevil capitalists, and truth doesn't matter when you have righteousness on your side.
I don't mean the sheer number of people in there, I mean the way that it's a place for institutionalized rape and that most Americans seem to be perfectly OK with that.
You want me to explain to you why a facility full of hardened criminals might have a somewhat high incidence of rape? And why the general public wouldn't care about what criminals do to each other?
This goes back to that "kind of an idiot" thing ....
The two things (Abu Ghraib and federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison) seem related to me. The idea that there's whole classes/races of people who somehow "deserve" to be tortured, abused and shot at seems to be prevalent in the USA.
That might be a valid observation if it were solely an american phenomenon. It is not. Not even close. I've heard similar comments made by people of all kinds of different nationalities, and prison rape is certainly not a US-only phenomenon. For you to single out the USA says far more about your biases than it does about the actual character of the United States as a nation.
War crimes.
Give me a specific example of a war crime which occurred and for which "no one from the west has been held accountable".
Methed-up helicopter pilots who can't tell the difference between a fucking camera and a rocket launcher, killing journalists before confirming their targets are hostiles.
Give me an example of this occurring. No, the Bradley Manning video doesn't show that, no matter how much you would like to pretend that it does.
Abu-ghraib prisoner abuse and torture.
Plenty of people were held accountable for this, which directly contradicts the original claim.
Robert Bales. Kandahar massacre.
Got life in prison. Again, what kind of retard thinks this is an example of westerners not being held accountable?
The puppy pitcher. Don't look it up.
He was booted out of the marines, and his buddy was disciplined. Strike three, you're out!
Shall I continue?
If you're going to provide more of the same, then no, you certainly shouldn't. If you have some legit examples then please start.
You say "plenty". Do you have any evidence that a single person did get killed?
Nope, otherwise I would have said that he DID get people killed. Obviously from a legal perspective this would be important in determining the category of his crime, but from a moral perspective it doesn't make a difference.
Have you forgotten Abu Ghraib? That's the true face of the USA.
You really are kind of an idiot, aren't you? I guess you think that Anders Breivik is the true face of Norway, too.
Other one got modded down by some morons, so reposting to give you a chance to back up your blather:
war crimes revealed by Manning?
[Citation needed]
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury
That, uhm ... that doesn't actually mean what you appear to think it means.
This part of the fifth amendment deals with the requirement to have a grand jury approve the charges before any felony is actually brought to trial. It's not saying that "you have to give answers to a grand jury", it's saying "you will not be put on trial (held to answer) unless a grand jury presents an indictment against you".
I would ask for it in writing, after which I would be quite happy to answer all of their questions. If they subsequently tried to charge me with anything I would laugh in their faces after the judge threw it out of court.
The comparison you're trying to draw is flawed because grand jury proceeding do not include the defendant. That's really the primary reason why there's no defense lawyer present; because the jury is not interested in hearing from the defendant at all. It's not a case of the defendant being forced to speak without his lawyer, but rather a case of the defendant not even being invited to the proceedings. Ergo your question is irrelevant; a more apt comparison would have been to ask "what would you say if the police didn't take you to the station?".
It is easy to be an arse on the internet, but think about it.
In real life, if you meet a "man in a dress" - say a clerk in the post office - are you really going to abuse them and insist on calling them a man to the other staff?
I've met and had decent conversations with a couple of women who "identified" as men. They were fun to be around, and seemed to enjoy my company as well. I simply addressed them by name. Had they insisted that I refer to them as "he", I would have refused, but they never asked, so we never had any issues. They also never tried to force their way into a male bathroom or change room, so that's another issue which could have have caused conflict but was handily avoided.
On the other hand, I was once out drinking with a group of friends when one of them - while trying to get by a guy in a crowded bar - said "excuse me, dude". The guy immediately turned around and screamed at the top of his lungs "I AM A WOMAN!!!!!". The subsequent conversation did not go well for him, and he eventually left the bar in tears.
I don't give a shit how you identify. Just like I don't really give a shit if you believe that the earth is flat, or that Elvis is still alive. Your beliefs don't matter to me until you try to force them on me, or on others. You can go on believing that you are Sir Fluffynuts of Licksley all you like; I'm unlikely to comment on it until you start demanding that I address you by your title.
Ah, I see, I misunderstood what you were saying ... though I'm still not sure I fully understand your argument.
Earlier you said that "Gender dysphoria in young children is a real thing, but usually resolves itself". This would seem to imply that "gender self-identification", as you put it, isn't a biological trait so much as a psychological/behavioral one (insofar as those are distinct concepts). The fact is, children role play and try on all kinds of behaviours. I've seen kids walk around on all fours, barking and panting. Are they self identifying as a dog?
A male child who takes on a female persona for a while isn't following some biological imperative to be a girl; it seems much more likely that he's just trying out a role. The only "hard wired" imperative is to try out new things; something which has served us well as a species. It only turns into gender dysphoria (a psychological problem) for those who eventually decide that they prefer a role which doesn't match their body.
Waiting to explode for 60 years so far, apparently. But it'll happen! Any day now!